[Jadran]

Can you imagine what a 5dmk111/1dmk111 is capable of

You should see what my little 40 years old and $200 worth Konica rangefinder camera is capable of in terms of detail. So what?

[Wheatfield]

Its funny how exceptions are always found at the extremes.

This is because average is rarely exceptional.

[Jadran]

I think that we are dealing with mass psyhology / hysteria in this "k-7 has terrible IQ" myth. K-7 is as good as K20D, and up to ISO1600 as good as D300s or 7D can get. But, you really need to put just a little effort to get quality images. As well as with any other camera.

[knoxploration]

A 7D cost slightly less than the K7 and it is far better in the noise dept and many other things to

It seems Pentax pricing in South Africa is way out of whack with the rest of the world, and your opinions are understandably flavored by that.

The K-7 is, in most markets, a vastly less expensive camera than the 7D. Currently in the US, to choose a large retailer at random, Amazon.com lists the 7D for US$1,700. The Pentax K7 is $1063 at the same retailer. That makes the 7D no less than 60% more expensive.

If the pricing you're citing for the K-7 vs. the 7D really is the best-case available in South Africa, then yes I'd agree the K-7 isn't as good a proposition there. In other markets though, the cameras you're comparing to aren't remotely in the same price bracket, and hence your conclusions simply don't apply.

[rawr]

Just to chime in here too, in Australia body only for the K-7 is $1500, body only for the 7D is $2300, both official non-grey market prices from a mainstream retailer like DCW. Prices in South Africa sound really weird. Oh, and the price for the K-x body only from the same retailer is $689

[pcarfan]

A 7D cost slightly less than the K7 and it is far better in the noise dept and many other things to

All these very experienced paid pros covering theater/ballet productions mainly use 5D/5D MK11/1DMK111/1Ds - there must be a reason why they don't use the K7/Kx, 20D etc

Is the K7 a massive upgrade from the K10D/20D re: noise = no/ is the 7D - yes.

A second hand Canon 5dmk111/D700/1DMK111 with say 20 000 actuations can be had for just 30% more than the K7 and they will dominate in just about everything including noise handling

It also amazes me that many here think that the Pentax lenses offer the best performance/value - personally I believe Canon does with Nikon a distant 2nd.

And yes having handled and shot with a K7 it is a beautiful cam and most won't really need much more than this.

My K10D is my first dslr and it has delivered for me and I have learned a great deal and now looking to upgrade to a more complete package and to my great distress Pentax doesn't have the package and trust me I have also had the blinkered Canon/Nikon and lenses are shite approach.

Below is an unedited 7D ISO1600 - I personally think the detail is amazing in jpeg to and with a minuscule amount of pp - incredible



Can you imagine what a 5dmk111/1dmk111 is capable of

The FF Canons you mention will smoke the k-7 in most departments, and the only exception I can think of is the size. The second hand market for these is indeed an option. Before getting the K-7, I looked into those....they still keep value and the size and like any FF not having a built-in flash along with the lens selections made it unsuitable for me, but the body performance is indeed stellar. So, yeah! even the older FF will smoke the K-7 and indeed any other APS-C camera on the market.

But, why do you say the 7D is a massive improvement over the K10D for noise and where as the K-7 is not? Is it for a jpeg shooter?, then yes, but if you are shooting RAW, then can you explain why the DPR tests shows practically no difference in iso performance between the k-7, D300s and the 7D ?

Thank you.

[pcarfan]

I think that we are dealing with mass psyhology / hysteria in this "k-7 has terrible IQ" myth. K-7 is as good as K20D, and up to ISO1600 as good as D300s or 7D can get. But, you really need to put just a little effort to get quality images. As well as with any other camera.

I agree with you, but what we need to understand is that the K-7 indeed has terrible IQ for jpeg shooters who use high iso, only with RAW it catches up to the competition.

Why Pentax can't come up with a decent jpeg engine is beyond me......

[pcarfan]

Ok, Do you folks see the irony in this? I paid $1299.00 for my K-7 which is the Pentax flag ship DSLR. I have heard from ''many'' members that I should add a $600.00 K-X for high ISO use...Hmm, that adds up to $1900.00...That is more than what a D300S cost...So basically, to get D300S performance I need 2 Pentax cameras..The high end one and the low end one...I think, I just decided what I am going to do

Javier, interesting perspective

But first, that is assuming that even those who are suggesting to get the K-x is implying the D300s is up to the task. IMO, it is not. The K-x is a better iso performer. Secondly, I think 'most' are saying to shoot in RAW with the k-7 and take a little time for PP to match the iso performance of the D300s and not to get a second body (I didn't count though...).....so, I guess it is all relative.

But, the D300s still has a better AF, and the K-7 a smaller package, and myriad of other differences other than just iso. So, it is not as easy as just comparing iso performance..

Anyhow, as you said you only shoot jpeg's, and own a D700 and lenses, the logical choice is indeed the D300s. Good luck! will hate to see you go.....

[Marc Sabatella]

I agree with you, but what we need to understand is that the K-7 indeed has terrible IQ for jpeg shooters who use high iso, only with RAW it catches up to the competition.

With the default settings, which Pentax typically optimizes for detail as opposed to noise. Have you tried running a comparison with the JPEG NR turned up higher, if that is your preference?

[jpzk]

I was not going to comment, but what the heck.
Context, I shoot Jpegs, No RAW for me. No time to be wasting on PP other than simple things...
I have 2 K20D's and they are both a full stop better at noise control about ISO800 than the K-7...The K-7 produces better images below ISO 800, But it does me very little good as I like shooting at F/8 and need fast shutter speeds, hence I use MY K20D's more....I did buy a second K-7 because I thought I had a bad one, but ended up sending it back as it was exactly the same....I considered the K-X but in truth, I have started to loose faith in Pentax. I have been enjoying my D700 ''alot'' with its 2 maybe more stop advantage over the K20D which makes it 3 stops over the K-7...I am considering the d300s VERY much right now. If I do this, look for some great deals in the market place for tons of Pentax stuff. I will keep 1 K20D and a few lenses, but all else will go....

If I shot below ISO 800 like in the 100-400 range, I would be happy with the K-7 but that is not the case....

JG,
I see that you like the K20D better for "noisy" issue, and that is understandable according to your comparisons, hands-on. I like the fact that real users present their opinion. I too like to shoot at F8 or 5.6 and of course one needs to work at higher ISO at lot of times.
Did you really have that bad results with the K7 above ISO 800 in the 100-400 range? But that is JPEG ... no RAW at all to compare?
Considering the D300 which some say can be comparable to the K7 in RAW (I know you shoot only JPEG) while you already have the D700 is quite a departure from this thread. Comparing the K7 to the D700 is really no match, in my honest opinion.
I too would just love to be able to afford a D700 with the corresponding lenses I already have in Pentax mount, but that would be financial suicide, for me anyway.
On the other hand, if I did, I certainly would be the Pentax gear as well. It served me well this far.
The point of this thread being to find out from K7 users what they think of its noise level has been answered in your post here, and thank you for the reply.
JP

[jpzk]

Thanks to all who answered this thread and posted very timely and intelligent repsonses, but I am now leaving this thread because it has turned into a Canikon-Pentax comparison again.
Don't get me wrong: I absolutely appreciate the time and efforts people put into it, but I am becoming bored with D-7/D300/D700 ... etc. comparisons.
We shall see you all maybe in another thread.
JP

[pcarfan]

Thanks to all who answered this thread and posted very timely and intelligent repsonses, but I am now leaving this thread because it has turned into a Canikon-Pentax comparison again.
Don't get me wrong: I absolutely appreciate the time and efforts people put into it, but I am becoming bored with D-7/D300/D700 ... etc. comparisons.
We shall see you all maybe in another thread.
JP

Sorry dude!.... It's not unusual for a thread to take it's own course, very much in the wrong direction to the OP's intentions. I hope you got some things straightened out.

[pcarfan]

JP,

Back on the topic.....I already answered your question, but you also asked whether I shoot at iso 3200 and I said almost never. This is one of the rare exception. I processed this image just to bring this back to topic. This guy was moving around and I needed the fast shutter, but the area was dark, so I shot wide open with my FA 77 and at iso 3200. The shot is underexposed, but works for the subject.

Exif intact (iso 3200 and two stops underexposed)

[Rondec]

Definitely a nice shot. I think people who haven't used out-of-camera noise reduction software don't realize how much better it can be than the noise reduction that is present in in-camera jpegs. I can understand shooting jpeg for low iso situations, but for high iso, I would far rather shoot RAW and take my chances.

DP Review did comment recently that the K20 RAW was some of the best of the last crop of APS-C sensors with regard to noise.

[pcarfan]

Yeah, especially when it is 2 stops underexposed my understanding is that it will show more noise.

This image is iso 3200 but properly exposed with NO NR, only opened in LR and cropped and saved. LR default settings administer some mild NR, but that's about it. The shot was taken at 1/8 hand held as well.

(EXIF intact)



Again iso 3200, NO NR, and properly exposed.